Smoking Status and Survival Among a National Cohort of Lung and Colorectal Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to explore the association of smoking status and clinically relevant duration of smoking cessation with long-term survival after lung cancer (LC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. We compared survival of patients with LC and CRC who were never-smokers, long-term, medium-term, and short-term quitters, and current smokers around diagnosis. METHODS: We studied 5575 patients in Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS), a national, prospective observational cohort study, who provided smoking status information approximately 5 months after LC or CRC diagnosis. Smoking status was categorized as: never-smoker, quit >5 years prior to diagnosis, quit between 1-5 years prior to diagnosis, quit less than 1 year before diagnosis, and current smoker. We examined the relationship between smoking status around diagnosis with mortality using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among participants with LC, never-smokers had lower mortality risk compared with current smokers (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89). Among participants with CRC, never-smokers had a lower mortality risk as compared to current smokers (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Among both LC and CRC patients, current smokers at diagnosis have higher mortality than never-smokers. This effect should be further studied in the context of tumor biology. However, smoking cessation around the time of diagnosis did not affect survival in this sample. IMPLICATIONS: The results from our analysis of patients in the CanCORS consortium, a large, geographically diverse cohort, show that both LC and CRC patients who were actively smoking at diagnosis have worse survival as compared to never-smokers. While current smoking is detrimental to survival, cessation upon diagnosis may not mitigate this risk.

Effect and Efficiency of an Embedded Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner in an Oncology Clinic.

PURPOSE: To test a simultaneous care model for palliative care for patients with advanced cancer by embedding a palliative care nurse practitioner (NP) in an oncology clinic. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of the intervention in two oncologists' clinics beginning March 2014 by using implementation strategies, including use of a structured referral mechanism, routine symptom screening, integration of a psychology-based cancer supportive care center, implementation team meetings, team training, and a metrics dashboard for continuous quality improvement. After 1 year of implementation, we evaluated key process and outcome measures for supportive oncology and efficiency of the model by documenting tasks completed by the NP during a subset of patient visits and time-motion studies. RESULTS: Of approximately 10,000 patients with active cancer treated in the health system, 2,829 patients had advanced cancer and were treated by 42 oncologists. Documentation of advance care planning increased for patients of the two intervention oncologists compared with patients of the other oncologists. Hospice referral before death was not different at baseline, but was significantly higher for patients of intervention oncologists compared with patients of control oncologists (53% v 23%; P = .02) over the intervention period. Efficiency evaluation revealed that approximately half the time spent by the embedded NP potentially could have been completed by other staff (eg, a nurse, a social worker, or administrative staff). CONCLUSION: An embedded palliative care NP model using scalable implementation strategies can improve advance care planning and hospice use among patients with advanced cancer.

The Symptom Experience in Rectal Cancer Survivors.

CONTEXT: As the number of rectal cancer survivors grows, it is important to understand the symptom experience after treatment. Although data show that rectal cancer survivors experience a variety of symptoms after diagnosis, little has been done to study the way these symptoms are grouped and associated. OBJECTIVES: To determine symptom prevalence and intensity in rectal cancer survivors and if clusters of survivors exist, who share similar symptom-defined survivor subgroups that may vary based on antecedent variables. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Cancer Care and Outcomes Research and Surveillance database was undertaken. Cluster analysis was performed on 15-month postdiagnosis data to form post-treatment survivor subgroups, and these were examined for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. Data were analyzed using cluster analysis, chi-square, and analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 275 rectal cancer survivors were included who had undergone chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Most frequently reported symptoms included feeling "worn out" (87%), feeling "tired" (85%), and "trouble sleeping" (66%). Four symptom-defined survivor subgroups (minimally symptomatic n = 40, tired and trouble sleeping n = 138, moderate symptoms n = 42, and highly symptomatic n = 55) were identified with symptom differences existing among each subgroup. Age and being married/partnered were the only two antecedents found to differ across subgroups. CONCLUSION: This study documents differences in the symptom experience after treatment. The identification of survivor subgroups allows researchers to further investigate tailored, supportive care strategies to minimize ongoing symptoms in those with the greatest symptom burden.

Risk of Neutropenia-Related Hospitalization in Patients Who Received Colony-Stimulating Factors With Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Purpose To describe outcomes after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy regimens with low-to-intermediate risk of induction of neutropenia-related hospitalization. Patients and Methods We identified 8,745 patients age ≥ 18 years from a medical and pharmacy claims database for 14 commercial US health plans. This retrospective analysis included patients with breast cancer who began first-cycle chemotherapy from 2008 to 2013 using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC); docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH); or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (conventional-dose AC) regimens. Primary prophylaxis (PP) was defined as G-CSF administration within 5 days of beginning chemotherapy. Outcome was neutropenia, fever, or infection-related hospitalization within 21 days of initiating chemotherapy. Multivariable regressions and number-needed-to-treat analyses were used. Results A total of 4,815 patients received TC (2,849 PP; 1,966 no PP); 2,292 patients received TCH (1,444 PP; 848 no PP); and 1,638 patients received AC (857 PP; 781 no PP) regimen. PP was associated with reduced risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization for TC (2.0% PP; 7.1% no PP; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.39) and TCH (1.3% PP; 7.1% no PP; AOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.30), but not AC (4.7% PP; 3.8% no PP; AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.93) regimens. For the TC regimen, 20 patients (95% CI, 16 to 26) would have to be treated for 21 days to avoid one neutropenia-related hospitalization; with the TCH regimen, 18 patients (95% CI, 13 to 25) would have to be treated. Conclusion Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with low-to-modest benefit in lowering neutropenia-related hospitalization in patients with breast cancer who received TC and TCH regimens. Further evaluation is needed to better understand which patients benefit most from G-CSF prophylaxis in this setting.

Palliative Care Specialist Consultation Is Associated With Supportive Care Quality in Advanced Cancer.

CONTEXT: Although recent randomized controlled trials support early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, the specific processes of care associated with these findings and whether these improvements can be replicated in the broader health care system are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of palliative care consultation and its association with specific processes of supportive care in a national cohort of Veterans using the Cancer Quality ASSIST (Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment) measures. METHODS: We abstracted data from 719 patients' medical records diagnosed with advanced lung, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer in 2008 over a period of three years or until death who received care in the Veterans Affairs Health System to evaluate the association of palliative care specialty consultation with the quality of supportive care overall and by domain using a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: All but 54 of 719 patients died within three years and 293 received at least one palliative care consult. Patients evaluated by a palliative care specialist at diagnosis scored seven percentage points higher overall (P < 0.001) and 11 percentage points higher (P < 0.001) within the information and care planning domain compared with those without a consult. CONCLUSION: Early palliative care specialist consultation is associated with better quality of supportive care in three advanced cancers, predominantly driven by improvements in information and care planning. This study supports the effectiveness of early palliative care consultation in three common advanced cancers within the Veterans Affairs Health System and provides a greater understanding of what care processes palliative care teams influence.

Complications Associated With Use of Long-Term Central Venous Catheters Among Commercially Insured Women With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite some advantages to their use, long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are associated with complications for patients who require chemotherapy. Understanding of these risks in commercially insured populations is limited. This information can inform medical policies that ensure the appropriate use of venous access devices. This study's objectives were to assess the extent of variation in use of long-term CVCs in a cohort of commercially insured women with breast cancer, and to assess risks of associated complications. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using health insurance claims between January 2006 and October 2013. The cohort included commercially insured women age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with breast cancer who received infusion chemotherapy (N = 31,047). We conducted matched and case-mix adjusted Cox proportional hazard modeling to assess differences in bloodstream infections and thrombovascular complications between patients using long-term CVCs and those using temporary intravenous catheters. RESULTS: Approximately two thirds of the cohort had a long-term CVC, although rates varied across regions (57% to 75%), health plans (65% to 70%), and insurance coverage (63% to 68%). After propensity score matching, the adjusted hazard ratio for infection was 2.70 (95% CI, 2.31 to 3.16) and thrombovascular complications, 2.61 (95% CI, 2.33 to 2.93) in patients with long-term CVCs compared with those with temporary intravenous catheters. CONCLUSION: Although long-term CVCs may have benefits, they are associated with increased morbidity. Regional and health plan variation in long-term CVC insertion suggests that some of their use reflects provider- or institution-driven variation in practice. Evidence-based guidelines and tools may help decrease discretionary use of long-term CVCs.

Patient-reported quality of care and pain severity in cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Despite treatment availability, many cancer patients experience severe pain. Although patient assessments of care are increasingly employed to evaluate quality of care, little is known about its association with cancer symptom burden. The objective of our study was to examine the association between patient-reported quality of care and pain severity in a nationally representative cohort of cancer patients. METHOD: Quality of care was measured in three domains: physician communication, care coordination/responsiveness, and nursing care. Quality scores were dichotomized as optimal versus nonoptimal. Pain was measured on a scale of 0 (least) to 100 (worst). We utilized multivariable linear regression to examine the association between patient-reported quality of care and pain severity. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 2,746 individuals. Fifty and 54% of patients, respectively, rated physician communication and care coordination/responsiveness as nonoptimal; 28% rated nursing care as nonoptimal. In adjusted models, rating physician communication as nonoptimal (versus optimal) was associated with a 1.8-point higher pain severity (p = 0.018), and rating care coordination/responsiveness as nonoptimal was associated with a 2.2-point higher pain severity (p = 0.006). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Patient-reported quality of care was significantly associated with pain severity, although the differences were small. Interventions targeting physician communication and care coordination/responsiveness may result in improved pain control for some patients.

Implementing Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a final B-level recommendation indicating that individuals between the ages of 55 and 80 years who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and have smoked within the past 15 years should receive annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening. We convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to create practical guidance for efficiently implementing effective CT lung cancer screening programs. METHODS: The lung cancer screening panel included 12 members, representing a broad range of stakeholders. The panel discussed clinical and system issues related to the implementation of CT lung cancer screening and developed recommendations for implementing CT lung cancer screening programs. RESULTS: The panel identified five main goals that must be achieved to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing CT lung cancer screening: one, accurately identify individuals eligible for screening; two, provide access to screening at qualified facilities for eligible individuals; three, ensure appropriate follow-up for positive and negative screening results; four, promote continuous quality improvement of screening programs and downstream care; and five, provide smoking cessation support for all current smokers. The panel proposed a series of stakeholder-specific recommendations for achieving these goals. CONCLUSION: Implementation of effective and efficient population-based CT lung cancer screening will require involvement and coordination of stakeholders across the health care system to address the data and infrastructural needs that were identified.

Symptom prevalence in lung and colorectal cancer patients.

CONTEXT: Relatively few data are available about symptoms among cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and severity of symptoms among a large, representative cohort of newly diagnosed cancer patients. METHODS: We collected survey data about symptoms (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, and diarrhea) from 5422 patients with incident lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse, nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium cohort. We described the prevalence of any symptoms and moderate/severe symptoms approximately four to six months after diagnosis. We used logistic regression to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with symptoms, and calculated adjusted proportions of patients with symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 5067 (93.5%) patients reported at least one symptom in the four weeks before their survey, with 51% reporting at least one moderate/severe symptom. Lung cancer patients reported more symptoms than colorectal cancer patients. Patients who received treatment or had more comorbidities were more likely to report symptoms. For example, after adjustment, patients who received chemotherapy during the six weeks before the survey were more likely than others to report at least one symptom (97.3% vs. 90.8%, P<0.001), and at least one moderate/severe symptom (56.8% vs. 46.2%, P<0.001). After adjustment, early- vs. late-stage patients did not differ in reports of at least one symptom (93.6% vs. 93.4%, P=0.853) and differed only slightly in reports of at least one moderate/severe symptom (53.3% vs. 49.6%, P=0.009). CONCLUSION: Most recently diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer patients have cancer-related symptoms regardless of stage, and more than half have at least one moderate/severe symptom.

Is race/ethnicity related to the presence or severity of pain in colorectal and lung cancer?

CONTEXT: Developing interventions to address racial/ethnic cancer pain disparities requires exploration of the role of socioeconomic status, health status, and pain severity from the time of diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of disparities in cancer pain by evaluating differences by race/ethnicity in the odds of reporting pain and in pain severity, controlling for key patient-level covariates. METHODS: This study used data from a nationally representative cohort of colorectal and lung cancer patients. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine the relationship between race/ethnicity and reporting pain. Multivariable linear regression was then conducted, among those who reported pain, to determine differences in pain severity by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The cohort included 5761 individuals (14% black, 7% Hispanic/Latino, 6% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3% multiracial), among whom 48% reported pain. The adjusted odds of reporting differed only for multiracial patients, who were more likely to report pain than whites (odds ratio: 1.54; P = 0.036). However, among those with pain, severity was higher for black patients (ß = 6.6; P ≤ 0.001) and multiracial patients (ß = 4.5; P = 0.036) relative to white patients. Lower educational attainment, depressed affect, and lower levels of wealth also were associated with higher pain severity. CONCLUSION: Although the odds of experiencing pain differed only for multiracial patients, among those reporting pain, both blacks and multiracial individuals reported higher pain severity than whites. Sociodemographic status, health status, and depression were associated with severity but did not explain the disparity. Interventions to address these disparities will need to focus on reported severity and patient-level factors.

Facility characteristics and quality of lung cancer care in an integrated health care system.

INTRODUCTION: In a national, integrated health care system, we sought to identify facility-level attributes associated with better quality of lung cancer care. METHODS: Adherence to 23 quality indicators across four domains (Diagnosis and Staging, Treatment, Supportive Care, End-of-Life Care) was assessed through abstraction of electronic records from 4804 lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2007 at 131 Veterans Health Administration facilities. Performance was reported as proportions of eligible patients fulfilling adherence criteria. With stratification of patients by stage, generalized estimating equations identified facility-level characteristics associated with performance by domain. RESULTS: Overall performance was high for the older (mean age 67.7 years, SD 9.4 years), predominantly male (98%) veterans. However, no facility did well on every measure, and range of adherence across facilities was large; 9% of facilities were in the highest quartile for one or more domain of care, more than 30% for two, and 65% for three. No facility performed consistently well across all domains. Less than 1% performed in the lowest quartile for all. Few facility-level characteristics were associated with care quality. For End-of-Life Care, diagnosis and treatment within the same facility, availability of cancer psychiatry/psychology consultation services, and availability of both inpatient and outpatient palliative care consultation services were associated with better adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of Veterans Health Administration lung cancer care is generally high, though substantial variation exists across facilities. With the exception of the salutary impact of palliative care consultation services on end-of-life quality of care, observed facility-level characteristics did not consistently predict adherence to indicators, suggesting quality may be determined by complex local factors that are difficult to measure.

Evaluating the quality of supportive oncology using patient-reported data.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported data may provide valuable information for oncology quality measurement. We evaluated applying patient-reported data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium national study to quality indicators addressing supportive oncology domains. METHODS: We analyzed surveys including validated instruments for symptoms and care planning from 4,174 patients newly diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer. We adapted existing supportive oncology indicators for use with patient-reported data from Cancer Quality-ASSIST and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. Where feasible, we examined indicators using medical record data for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Using patient-reported data, the percentage of patients meeting indicator criteria for screening ranged from 74% (significant depressive symptoms) to 93% (pain, nausea/vomiting). The percentage meeting indicator criteria for symptom treatment ranged from 73% (significant depressive symptoms) to 99% (nausea/vomiting). Symptom severity did not affect the results. Using medical record data, the percentage meeting indicator criteria varied between 4% (significant depressive symptoms) and 23% (pain). For information and care planning, 44% met criteria for discussion about resuscitation and 32% for hospice discussion using survey data. Using medical record data, 11% met criteria for goals-of-care discussion in intensive care and 46% for hospice/pain management/palliative care referral before death. CONCLUSION: Quality of care for symptoms measured using patient self-report was higher than when including medical record data. Use of patient-reported and medical record data allowed measurement of different perspectives on care planning indicators. Patient-reported data provide a complementary, patient-centered perspective on the quality of supportive oncology care.

Quality of prostate cancer care among rural men in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Patient travel distances, coupled with variation in facility-level resources, create barriers for prostate cancer care in the Veterans Health Administration integrated delivery system. For these reasons, the authors investigated the degree to which these barriers impact the quality of prostate cancer care. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was used to identify all men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008. Patient residence was characterized using Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. The authors then examined whether rural residence, compared with urban residence, was associated with less access to cancer-related resources and worse quality of care for 5 prostate cancer quality measures. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of the 11,368 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008 lived in either a rural area or a large town. Rural patients tended to be white (62% urban vs 86% rural) and married (47% urban vs 63% rural), and they tended to have slightly higher incomes (all P<.01) but similar tumor grade (P=.23) and stage (P=.12) compared with urban patients. Rural patients were significantly less likely to be treated at facilities with comprehensive cancer resources, although they received a similar or better quality of care for 4 of the 5 prostate cancer quality measures. The time to prostate cancer treatment was similar (rural patients vs urban patients, 96.6 days vs 105.7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Rural patients with prostate cancer had less access to comprehensive oncology resources, although they received a similar quality of care, compared with their urban counterparts in the Veterans Health Administration integrated delivery system. A better understanding of the degree to which facility factors contribute to the quality of cancer care may assist other organizations involved in rural health care delivery.

Patient preference and contraindications in measuring quality of care: what do administrative data miss?

PURPOSE: Prior studies report that half of patients with lung cancer do not receive guideline-concordant care. With data from a national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study on quality of care, we sought to determine what proportion of patients refused or had a contraindication to recommended lung cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Through medical record abstraction, we evaluated adherence to six quality indicators addressing lung cancer-directed therapy for patients diagnosed within the VHA during 2007 and calculated the proportion of patients receiving, refusing, or having contraindications to recommended treatment. RESULTS: Mean age of the predominantly male population was 67.7 years (standard deviation, 9.4 years), and 15% were black. Adherence to quality indicators ranged from 81% for adjuvant chemotherapy to 98% for curative resection; however, many patients met quality indicator criteria without actually receiving recommended therapy by having a refusal (0% to 14%) or contraindication (1% to 30%) documented. Less than 1% of patients refused palliative chemotherapy. Black patients were more likely to refuse or bear a contraindication to surgery even when controlling for comorbidity; race was not associated with refusals or contraindications to other treatments. CONCLUSION: Refusals and contraindications are common and may account for previously demonstrated low rates of recommended lung cancer therapy performance at the VHA. Racial disparities in treatment may be explained, in part, by such factors. These results sound a cautionary note for quality measurement that depends on data that do not reflect patient preference or contraindications in conditions where such considerations are important.

Measuring the improving quality of outpatient care in medical oncology practices in the United States.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) has provided a method for measuring process-based practice quality since 2006. We sought to determine whether QOPI scores showed improvement in measured quality over time and, if change was demonstrated, which factors in either the measures or participants were associated with improvement. METHODS: The analysis included 156 practice groups from a larger group of 308 that submitted data from 2006 to 2010. One hundred fifty-two otherwise eligible practices were excluded, most commonly for insufficient data submission. A linear regression model that controlled for varied initial performance was used to estimate the effect of participation over time and evaluate participant and measure characteristics of improvement. RESULTS: Participants completed a mean of 5.06 (standard deviation, 1.94) rounds of data collection. Adjusted mean quality scores improved from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.91) to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95). Overall odds ratio of improvement over time was 1.09 (P < .001). The greatest improvement was seen in measures that assessed newly introduced clinical information, in which the mean scores improved from 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.17) to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.91; P < .001). Many measures showed no change over time. CONCLUSION: Many US oncologists have participated in QOPI over the past 6 years. Participation over time was highly correlated with improvement in measured performance. Greater and faster improvement was seen in measures concerning newly introduced clinical information. Some measures showed no change despite opportunity for improvement.